Mr. CONABLE. There's going to have to be a qualitative analysis made anyway. Dr. SEITZ. That's right. Mr. CONABLE. That's all. Mr. DADDARIO. On this matter of applied research and your concern about it, Dr. Seitz, you have spent some time developing this thesis and yet you say that the Foundation should support good research whether that research be basic or applied. Just so the record may better indicate your feeling about this and because you do come back to this point, I wonder if you could emphasize your argument in relation to the concern you show here and why you then do say they should support the basic as well as applied? Dr. SEITZ. I think the issue arises because our universities frequently have engineering departments. Such departments are closely integrated with the life of the academic institutions; in fact it is very important that they be so. Some of the most valuable problems which the engineers work on and, in many ways the most valuable contributions engineers in universities make, center about things which have an applied connotation; for example, an engineering department may be interested in a hypothetical analysis of the future method of railroad transportation. I think it would be appropriate to have the Science Foundation support academic groups in engineering departments that have goals of an applied nature, provided such work is carried out in accordance with high professional standards and in the spirit of inquiry. Mr. DADDARIO. Well, then you are concerned about something affecting this adversely. Dr. SEITZ. Yes, I am concerned but I recognize there is a problem and I think the Science Foundation should address itself to it. Mr. DADDARIO. There's a need, which must be filled, and the National Science Foundation is the proper party to take care of this need even though there is a danger. By recognizing it, making a move in this direction and establishing necessary safeguards, we fill a gap and will probably not reach a point where it will be a disintegrating influence on the Foundation? Dr. SEITZ. That's right. Mr. DADDARIO. I had occasion to go back to the basic national goals which the Academy put together for the Congress. In summary, I think there are a couple of sentences which ought to be read because they are important to this argument and I would like your comment. Under section 5 of the summary entitled of "Basic Research and National Goals": We must improve the connection between basic and applied science, it says: "We must examine more carefully the efficiency with which our Nation has been able to convert successes in basic research to practical advantage." This was somewhat discussed and then it continues: "But now many of the panelists believe the universities do play a notable role in maintaining our strength in applied research." For, as Brooks suggests, there is a steady flow of people trained in university-type research who go into applied science, "which has been one of the characteristic features of American science that has contributed to its vitality." This indeed is one of the important ways in which the results of basic science are converted into applied payoffs. And neither Teller nor Kantrowitz nor Bode wishes to disturb our position of leadership in basic research, established largely because the Government has supported basic research at the universities so steadily. Rather the former two suggest a new educational pattern for applied science in which the citadels of basic research, the universities, and of applied research, the industrial and Government laboratories, form joint entities devoted to graduate education in the applied sciences. All of this interweaves itself with your comments this morning that the basic research does complement the applied research. They are both related in the way which people move from the basic to the applied fields. By learning more about how this transition takes place, we are performing a needed function. Dr. SEITZ. That is right. I agree. I think the engineers in universities should be given support through the Foundation in ways which are meaningful to the advancement of engineering. Mr. CONABLE. Well, there is a basic science to engineering too, isn't there? Dr. SEITZ. I'll get into a row with Eric Walker here, if I talk too much about engineering since he is the expert. Mr. DADDARIO. You think in the graduate schools, expecially in the engineering areas, there is a need for additional support. Your concern is that support doesn't spread to the point where great sums of money are spent in the National Science Foundation on applied problems which could divert funds from its unique responsibility in basic research. Dr. SEITZ. That's right. Regarding the question you raised, I would say this: I think that in present-day society the prime responsibility of the engineer is to facilitate the handover of the basic ideas generated by science to application. The engineer introduces some things of his own along the way; things of which he is very proud. The engineer has prime responsibility for what I have called the process of handover. Mr. CONABLE. But, some of his techniques can involve basic science. They may not have direct application. Dr. SEITZ. That is right. Mr. CONABLE. To a specific problem. Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn-I assume we are about to. Mr. CONABLE. Excuse me. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Seitz, you refer on page 10 to "support of basic scientific research being limited to a starvation level." What are you actually referring to here? I am concerned that the record. show clearly the amounts of money spent by the Government for increased Federal support in academic research. In the budget for fiscal 1967 Federal support is somewhere between 10 and 12 percent as I can estimate. This is a pretty good rate of growth. Is your concern about the overall percentage or about some of the disciplines where proper support is not going? Dr. SEITZ. I would say the biggest source of concern of the scientific community at large is in the distribution or division of funds between big science and what I have called independent science and what many others call little science. Most of the physical and organic chemists in universities and many of the physicists who are not in high-energy physics, feel that funds are becoming increasingly limited. As a matter of fact, about 2 weeks ago I read a letter from the head of a physics department in an excellent university with a long history of productivity. The department does not engage appreciably in high-energy physics, but is involved in other areas. He reached the conclusion that the department head had to cut down on the number of graduate students it could take because the funds, derived from Government sources have reached a ceiling. Although the Federal budgets for science are climbing, there are important areas, of research, which are not receiving proportional benefits. As a matter of fact, the provost at the institution I mentioned made the informal comment that if his institution had not by good fortune been selected recently as one of the recipients of a National Science Foundation development grant it would be in very great straits because it was not receiving funds for research commensurate with the increase in students. Mr. DADDARIO. We are presently contemplating the construction of a 200-Bev. accelerator which will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 million with an annual operating cost of $80 million as I understand the estimate to be. Do gigantic programs of this kind, necessary as they might be, which increase the overall percentage, detract from certain areas of science which are vital insofar as national growth is concerned. Dr. SEITZ. Yes, this is the worry. I might say that I think that machine is excellently conceived and represents a great national need. Smaller science deserves similar attention. Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, I did not bring this up because I disagree with the program, but rather to indicate more precisely your own concern that as we expend these funds, we do have a tendency to decrease spending in less glamorous places. I expect that this is really your point. Dr. SEITZ. That's the point I was driving at. Mr. VIVIAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Vivian? Mr. VIVIAN. I'm happy to wait until you are completed, otherwise I would like to ask questions. Mr. DADDARIO. You may proceed. Mr. VIVIAN. With regard to the support of chemistry and of certain facets of physics which was very ably discussed in the National Academy of Sciences reports received earlier this year, certainly I rank chemistry as one of the top fields of science. What do the Board and the National Science Foundation do in a situation such as this? What action is being taken to respond to such inquiries or suggestions as made by the various groups of chemists? Dr. SEITZ. I suspect that in drawing up its budget for the future the National Science Foundation, which is quite conscious of this issue, attempts to include more money for the relatively small grants that are needed to keep such fields healthy. Under the pressures which exist, however, it doesn't always achieve its goals. Mr. VIVIAN. Will it for example reduce support in any other area? Dr. SEITZ. I think you would have to speak to Dr. Haworth about that. Mr. VIVIAN. Such as Mohole for example. Mr. Chairman, am I free to ask Dr. Haworth a question at this Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Haworth has been kind enough to be here and he is always willing to step forward. Mr. VIVIAN. Dr. Haworth, I am curious to know what the likely response will be of the Foundation through its Board and its Director to the suggestion made for the increased support of chemical science which I regard as a very valid subject. Dr. HAWORTH. Let me take the example of chemistry. A few months after I came with the Foundation we began to be aware of this, that chemistry did seem to be suffering. And, I think the reason primarily is that chemistry doesn't have a mission-oriented home across chemistry in the same sense that some of the others, biology has a mission-oriented home in NIH, and materials has in AEC, and NASA, and DOD, and so on. And, chemistry as a subject doesn't in the same sense; so as the budgets tended to level off in the support from the mission-oriented agencies, it was somewhat at the expense of chemistry. Well, in the intervening time, if you take that was 1963 we were just embarking when I came on the 1964 budget year, fiscal year. Since that time and taking into account the budget that lies before the Congress now, we have a little more than doubled the funds that we allocate to chemistry assuming that our appropriation_ bill will be passed as requested, whereas for basic research as a whole it has gone up about 50 percent. So, we do respond. Mr. VIVIAN. You have already responded and do you participate further? Dr. HAWORTH. Yes, but I don't mean our response is adequate, but we are very aware of this sort of thing. Mr. VIVIAN. What freedom of action do you have, for example, adjusting the amount of money for Mohole project to, for example, enhance the effort in chemistry? Dr. HAWORTH. I think the thing that really determines that project is the level at which you have to support it in order to make it an efficient operation. It is at a stage where to hold the shipyard back or things of that sort would simply make it cost more money in the long run. But, it is not restraints that determine how much we put into it, but what is the most effective way to keep it going properly not in any sense of on a crash program basis, but as a straightforward progress toward Mr. VIVIAN. Has there been any dispute between the Board and Director on the amount of money for the Mohole project? Dr. HAWORTH. No. Mr. VIVIAN. Let me compliment you on your peaceful relationship with the agency. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Yeager, you have a final question? Mr. YEAGER. Dr. Seitz, one of the major, perhaps cardinal, motives of the committee in its report and in the drafting of this legislation has been to strengthen the Science Foundation upgrading it within the scientific structure of the executive branch. Would you concur that anything the committee could reasonably do to affect this would be a useful process at this time? Dr. SEITZ. Yes, I would like to put the matter quite strongly. Science is now built so deeply into our society that raising the stature of the Science Foundation among the agencies is basically equivalent to raising the stature of our own country. I think it is as simple as that. I advocate the steps recommended here. Mr. YEAGER. One of the things that the bill would do is to raise the grade level of the Director of the Science Foundation. Yesterday the impression was left, I think, that this level II which we have discussed was more or less limited to Deputies or Under Secretaries. The law shows, however, that out of the 19 people so designated, 5 are in this category, 10 are directors or chairmen of independent agencies. So, what the committee proposes would certainly be not a precedent-setting matter. I was wondering if you would comment on whether you felt this would be appropriate? (See appendix D. p. 147.) Dr. SEITZ. Is this in connection with the Associate Mr. YEAGER. The Director and the Deputy Director, in raising their salary levels. Dr. SEITZ. Yes, I strongly recommend this. In an earlier version of the bill, which I saw, the positions of the Assistant Directors were specified rather narrowly. I strongly endorse this latest version which indicates that there will be some flexibility in the areas of responsibility of the Assistant Directors. Mr. YEAGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Čonable? Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Chairman, I assume we are about to adjourn now since Dr. Seitz is the last witness. I wonder what the plans are for the subcommittee to consider some of the very good points that have been made for revision of this bill? Will we have an executive session and proceed to put it into a clean bill? Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Conable, it's my feeling at the moment that additional witnesses will not be necessary and therefore the public hearings will come to a close as soon as this meeting ends. We will analyze the testimony, see how the testimony does affect the legislation as it now stands, see what recommendations are needed and will then if necessary call witnesses, which I would doubt, or proceed in executive session of the committee, working with our staff, to make changes as they may be indicated by the testimony. Mr. CONABLE. If we do make substantial changes, will we put in a clean bill? Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, we will. It would be our hope to do that. Mr. VIVIAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Vivian? Mr. VIVIAN. I have a brief remark to make. One of the purposes of our action is to raise the stature of the National Science Foundation, I concur with this, but I feel there is a very basic conflict. If we raise the stature of the Foundation in the scientific eyes, we may do so only publicly by increasing the stature of the Board relative to the status of the administration's presence in the agency through the Director but to raise NSF's stature in the overall functions of Government related to science, the only way we are going to do this is to raise the stature of the Director and the President's role in the Foundation at the expense of the Board. I think this basic conflict has to be recognized. I don't think it is possible to play a major role in all of the agencies. of Government unless its director responds principally to the President. As I say, this is in direct conflict to opinions expressed. |